PDA

View Full Version : Obama Soak The Rich


SBK
05-18-2009, 11:52 PM
And lose em.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html

Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich

Americans know how to use the moving van to escape high taxes.


By ARTHUR LAFFER (http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=ARTHUR+LAFFER&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND) and STEPHEN MOORE (http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=STEPHEN+MOORE&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND)

With states facing nearly $100 billion in combined budget deficits this year, we're seeing more governors than ever proposing the Barack Obama solution to balancing the budget: Soak the rich. Lawmakers in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Oregon want to raise income tax rates on the top 1% or 2% or 5% of their citizens. New Illinois Gov. Patrick Quinn wants a 50% increase in the income tax rate on the wealthy because this is the "fair" way to close his state's gaping deficit.

<cite></cite>


Mr. Quinn and other tax-raising governors have been emboldened by recent studies by left-wing groups like the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities that suggest that "tax increases, particularly tax increases on higher-income families, may be the best available option." A recent letter to New York Gov. David Paterson signed by 100 economists advises the Empire State to "raise tax rates for high income families right away."


Here's the problem for states that want to pry more money out of the wallets of rich people. It never works because people, investment capital and businesses are mobile: They can leave tax-unfriendly states and move to tax-friendly states.


And the evidence that we discovered in our new study for the American Legislative Exchange Council, "Rich States, Poor States," published in March, shows that Americans are more sensitive to high taxes than ever before. The tax differential between low-tax and high-tax states is widening, meaning that a relocation from high-tax California or Ohio, to no-income tax Texas or Tennessee, is all the more financially profitable both in terms of lower tax bills and more job opportunities.


Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.


Did the greater prosperity in low-tax states happen by chance? Is it coincidence that the two highest tax-rate states in the nation, California and New York, have the biggest fiscal holes to repair? No. Dozens of academic studies -- old and new -- have found clear and irrefutable statistical evidence that high state and local taxes repel jobs and businesses.


Martin Feldstein, Harvard economist and former president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, co-authored a famous study in 1998 called "Can State Taxes Redistribute Income?" This should be required reading for today's state legislators. It concludes: "Since individuals can avoid unfavorable taxes by migrating to jurisdictions that offer more favorable tax conditions, a relatively unfavorable tax will cause gross wages to adjust. . . . A more progressive tax thus induces firms to hire fewer high skilled employees and to hire more low skilled employees."


More recently, Barry W. Poulson of the University of Colorado last year examined many factors that explain why some states grew richer than others from 1964 to 2004 and found "a significant negative impact of higher marginal tax rates on state economic growth." In other words, soaking the rich doesn't work. To the contrary, middle-class workers end up taking the hit.


Finally, there is the issue of whether high-income people move away from states that have high income-tax rates. Examining IRS tax return data by state, E.J. McMahon, a fiscal expert at the Manhattan Institute, measured the impact of large income-tax rate increases on the rich ($200,000 income or more) in Connecticut, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 5% from 4.5%; in New Jersey, which raised its rate in 2004 to 8.97% from 6.35%; and in New York, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 7.7% from 6.85%. Over the period 2002-2005, in each of these states the "soak the rich" tax hike was followed by a significant reduction in the number of rich people paying taxes in these states relative to the national average.



Amazingly, these three states ranked 46th, 49th and 50th among all states in the percentage increase in wealthy tax filers in the years after they tried to soak the rich.


This result was all the more remarkable given that these were years when the stock market boomed and Wall Street gains were in the trillions of dollars. Examining data from a 2008 Princeton study on the New Jersey tax hike on the wealthy, we found that there were 4,000 missing half-millionaires in New Jersey after that tax took effect. New Jersey now has one of the largest budget deficits in the nation.


We believe there are three unintended consequences from states raising tax rates on the rich. First, some rich residents sell their homes and leave the state; second, those who stay in the state report less taxable income on their tax returns; and third, some rich people choose not to locate in a high-tax state. Since many rich people also tend to be successful business owners, jobs leave with them or they never arrive in the first place. This is why high income-tax states have such a tough time creating net new jobs for low-income residents and college graduates.


Those who disapprove of tax competition complain that lower state taxes only create a zero-sum competition where states "race to the bottom" and cut services to the poor as taxes fall to zero. They say that tax cutting inevitably means lower quality schools and police protection as lower tax rates mean starvation of public services.


They're wrong, and New Hampshire is our favorite illustration. The Live Free or Die State has no income or sales tax, yet it has high-quality schools and excellent public services. Students in New Hampshire public schools achieve the fourth-highest test scores in the nation -- even though the state spends about $1,000 a year less per resident on state and local government than the average state and, incredibly, $5,000 less per person than New York. And on the other side of the ledger, California in 2007 had the highest-paid classroom teachers in the nation, and yet the Golden State had the second-lowest test scores.


Or consider the fiasco of New Jersey. In the early 1960s, the state had no state income tax and no state sales tax. It was a rapidly growing state attracting people from everywhere and running budget surpluses. Today its income and sales taxes are among the highest in the nation yet it suffers from perpetual deficits and its schools rank among the worst in the nation -- much worse than those in New Hampshire. Most of the massive infusion of tax dollars over the past 40 years has simply enriched the public-employee unions in the Garden State. People are fleeing the state in droves.


One last point: States aren't simply competing with each other. As Texas Gov. Rick Perry recently told us, "Our state is competing with Germany, France, Japan and China for business. We'd better have a pro-growth tax system or those American jobs will be out-sourced." Gov. Perry and Texas have the jobs and prosperity model exactly right. Texas created more new jobs in 2008 than all other 49 states combined. And Texas is the only state other than Georgia and North Dakota that is cutting taxes this year.
The Texas economic model makes a whole lot more sense than the New Jersey model, and we hope the politicians in California, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota and New York realize this before it's too late.

KC native
05-19-2009, 12:49 AM
Ah, good ol' Art Laffer. The man whose theories only work at 70% marginal tax rates. Also, the man that blew up a mutual fund in about a year.

This analysis is overly simplistic and doesn't account for many factors that would influence something like this. This is about as shoddy as economic writing gets.

Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.

WTF is mostly? He puts all these other stats in there but conveniently leaves out exactly what % of people leaving those states that actually move to one of those states listed. This is info that they clearly have (and it's very telling that he didn't include it).

Also, did he account for the bubble in real estate bubble along the coasts in which many people that had significant property gains sold and moved to cheaper states? This is a major factor here in Dallas-Fort Worth. There are a ton of California transplants and many of them moved to get to a lower cost of living state.


Here comes one of the most impressive cherry picking of data sections I have ever seen.

Did the greater prosperity in low-tax states happen by chance? Is it coincidence that the two highest tax-rate states in the nation, California and New York, have the biggest fiscal holes to repair? No. Dozens of academic studies -- old and new -- have found clear and irrefutable statistical evidence that high state and local taxes repel jobs and businesses.

Funny how he cites a couple of studies later but doesn't cite any here.


Martin Feldstein, Harvard economist and former president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, co-authored a famous study in 1998 called "Can State Taxes Redistribute Income?" This should be required reading for today's state legislators. It concludes: "Since individuals can avoid unfavorable taxes by migrating to jurisdictions that offer more favorable tax conditions, a relatively unfavorable tax will cause gross wages to adjust. . . . A more progressive tax thus induces firms to hire fewer high skilled employees and to hire more low skilled employees."

More recently, Barry W. Poulson of the University of Colorado last year examined many factors that explain why some states grew richer than others from 1964 to 2004 and found "a significant negative impact of higher marginal tax rates on state economic growth." In other words, soaking the rich doesn't work. To the contrary, middle-class workers end up taking the hit.

I don't even know where to start here. He's arguing that taxes encourage people to move and then by use of an ellipsis says that higher taxes cause firms to hire less high skilled people. All I can say is wow. How does a higher tax rate cause them to hire less skilled employees and more low skilled employees? Compensation is an expense which lowers taxable income for a business. It makes no difference it it's a person making a $1000 or 10 people making $100. It results in the same compensation expense for the business.

For the second paragraph, why doesn't he cite the other factors? Also, how much is the significance of the impact? Statistically significant or just significant in the view of that author? Then he pulls out another Carl Lewis quality long jump and says that middle class workers take the hit without any justification.


Finally, there is the issue of whether high-income people move away from states that have high income-tax rates. Examining IRS tax return data by state, E.J. McMahon, a fiscal expert at the Manhattan Institute, measured the impact of large income-tax rate increases on the rich ($200,000 income or more) in Connecticut, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 5% from 4.5%; in New Jersey, which raised its rate in 2004 to 8.97% from 6.35%; and in New York, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 7.7% from 6.85%. Over the period 2002-2005, in each of these states the "soak the rich" tax hike was followed by a significant reduction in the number of rich people paying taxes in these states relative to the national average. Amazingly, these three states ranked 46th, 49th and 50th among all states in the percentage increase in wealthy tax filers in the years after they tried to soak the rich.

This result was all the more remarkable given that these were years when the stock market boomed and Wall Street gains were in the trillions of dollars. Examining data from a 2008 Princeton study on the New Jersey tax hike on the wealthy, we found that there were 4,000 missing half-millionaires in New Jersey after that tax took effect. New Jersey now has one of the largest budget deficits in the nation.

I really like the cherry picking here. This is some great contortion here. A 3 year period? Seriously? Couldn't have anything to do with the real estate bubble starting to crack in 2005 could it? Also, I really like the red herring of stock market gains somehow having something to do with the 2008 Princeton study showing a decrease in half millionaires. Again, the job losses and real estate crash are given no aknowlegdement in his article when they are very prominent factors in peoples' net worths.

We believe there are three unintended consequences from states raising tax rates on the rich. First, some rich residents sell their homes and leave the state; second, those who stay in the state report less taxable income on their tax returns; and third, some rich people choose not to locate in a high-tax state. Since many rich people also tend to be successful business owners, jobs leave with them or they never arrive in the first place. This is why high income-tax states have such a tough time creating net new jobs for low-income residents and college graduates.

Those who disapprove of tax competition complain that lower state taxes only create a zero-sum competition where states "race to the bottom" and cut services to the poor as taxes fall to zero. They say that tax cutting inevitably means lower quality schools and police protection as lower tax rates mean starvation of public services.

They're wrong, and New Hampshire is our favorite illustration. The Live Free or Die State has no income or sales tax, yet it has high-quality schools and excellent public services. Students in New Hampshire public schools achieve the fourth-highest test scores in the nation -- even though the state spends about $1,000 a year less per resident on state and local government than the average state and, incredibly, $5,000 less per person than New York. And on the other side of the ledger, California in 2007 had the highest-paid classroom teachers in the nation, and yet the Golden State had the second-lowest test scores.

So apparently Mr Laffer and his co-author are education experts now. What's funny is he doesn't mention Texas Schools (which suck ass) even though he cites them as the favored model later. Another thing that really sticks out here is the lack of discussion of the difference in property taxes.

Or consider the fiasco of New Jersey. In the early 1960s, the state had no state income tax and no state sales tax. It was a rapidly growing state attracting people from everywhere and running budget surpluses. Today its income and sales taxes are among the highest in the nation yet it suffers from perpetual deficits and its schools rank among the worst in the nation -- much worse than those in New Hampshire. Most of the massive infusion of tax dollars over the past 40 years has simply enriched the public-employee unions in the Garden State. People are fleeing the state in droves.

One last point: States aren't simply competing with each other. As Texas Gov. Rick Perry recently told us, "Our state is competing with Germany, France, Japan and China for business. We'd better have a pro-growth tax system or those American jobs will be out-sourced." Gov. Perry and Texas have the jobs and prosperity model exactly right. Texas created more new jobs in 2008 than all other 49 states combined. And Texas is the only state other than Georgia and North Dakota that is cutting taxes this year.

The Texas economic model makes a whole lot more sense than the New Jersey model, and we hope the politicians in California, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota and New York realize this before it's too late.

Here we get back to Texas (which has high property taxes which he conveniently ignores). He quotes Gov. Good Hair and how Texas is competeing with Germany et al. Again, another fine job of cherry picking. Texas is a massive state with a ton of natural resources (oil and gas) which has been responsible for a majority of the growth in the state.

Art Laffer is a shrill who has no business giving economic advice.

patteeu
05-19-2009, 08:23 AM
Ah, good ol' Art Laffer. The man whose theories only work at 70% marginal tax rates. Also, the man that blew up a mutual fund in about a year.

I don't know which theories you're talking about (since you didn't specify), but Laffer's most famous theory, represented by the Laffer Curve, works at any marginal tax rate.

Fat Elvis
05-19-2009, 08:32 AM
...

SBK
05-19-2009, 08:39 AM
Since Laffer is a Shrill with no business giving advice I'd love for our own non-partisan economic genious to layout why higher taxes bring jobs, higher levels of prosperity and economic growth.

Further, I'd love to see why people are moving out of high tax states in droves, and why low tax states are growing--since it has nothing to do with taxes.

Come on KC Native, educate us!
Posted via Mobile Device

patteeu
05-19-2009, 08:48 AM
This analysis is overly simplistic and doesn't account for many factors that would influence something like this. This is about as shoddy as economic writing gets.

After reading your response, I've concluded that it's about as shoddy as criticism of economic writing gets.

Most of your criticisms complaining about a lack of exhaustive detail can be accounted for by the fact that this is a newspaper editorial not an article from an economics journal or an academic thesis.

I'll address one of your problems specifically:

I don't even know where to start here. He's arguing that taxes encourage people to move and then by use of an ellipsis says that higher taxes cause firms to hire less high skilled people. All I can say is wow. How does a higher tax rate cause them to hire less skilled employees and more low skilled employees? Compensation is an expense which lowers taxable income for a business. It makes no difference it it's a person making a $1000 or 10 people making $100. It results in the same compensation expense for the business.

You missed their point completely. They're not talking about business taxes, they're talking about income taxes. When they say that "a relatively unfavorable tax will cause gross wages to adjust" they mean that a high individual tax rate on the wealthy will force businesses to increase the amount they offer to these high income earners so that they can compete with the after-tax compensation packages of competing businesses in low tax states.

Art Laffer is a shrill who has no business giving economic advice.

What's a "shrill" and what business do you have assessing economic advice given that you've made at least two basic mistakes in your analysis (as described above)?

KC native
05-19-2009, 09:08 AM
I don't know which theories you're talking about (since you didn't specify), but Laffer's most famous theory, represented by the Laffer Curve, works at any marginal tax rate.

Is that so? Why don't you actually look at the Laffer Curve instead of making claims which you know nothing about. Patty, your word games can't change the shape of the Laffer Curve. The Laffer Curve says that a cut in tax rates will bring in higher government revenue (which has been shown during Reagan and Shrub Jr that it's not true). If you're cutting from high (as in 70% and above) tax rates then yes a tax cut will pay for itself however moving from a 40% tax rate to a 35% tax rate creates deficits.

stevieray
05-19-2009, 09:13 AM
anyone ever hear of the KC native curve?

..didn't think so.

Velvet_Jones
05-19-2009, 09:17 AM
Come on KC Native, educate us!
Posted via Mobile Device

I think there is enough stupid around here.

KC native
05-19-2009, 09:23 AM
After reading your response, I've concluded that it's about as shoddy as criticism of economic writing gets.

Most of your criticisms complaining about a lack of exhaustive detail can be accounted for by the fact that this is a newspaper editorial not an article from an economics journal or an academic thesis.

Just because you don't understand my criticisms doesn't make them untrue. Also, I'm not asking for exhaustive detail but rather an honest argument. This editorial is full of logical fallacies (specifically if A happens and B happens then C must be because of A and B) and cherry picking. If you look at the changing dates and metrics he uses it's quite clear to anyone with a financial background that he is cherry picking his data to fit his argument.

I'll address one of your problems specifically:



You missed their point completely. They're not talking about business taxes, they're talking about income taxes. When they say that "a relatively unfavorable tax will cause gross wages to adjust" they mean that a high individual tax rate on the wealthy will force businesses to increase the amount they offer to these high income earners so that they can compete with the after-tax compensation packages of competing businesses in low tax states.

That still doesn't explain how it's any different from hiring 10 people who make the same amount as 1 person. They claim that higher taxes cause businesses to hire more low skill employees. Since a low skill worker is going to be less productive they are going to have to hire more low skill workers to make up for the difference in productivity. Net effect is no different.





What's a "shrill" and what business do you have assessing economic advice given that you've made at least two basic mistakes in your analysis (as described above)?

So, what do you have to say now that I've shown you that your claims of errors are incorrect?

patteeu
05-19-2009, 09:24 AM
Is that so? Why don't you actually look at the Laffer Curve instead of making claims which you know nothing about. Patty, your word games can't change the shape of the Laffer Curve. The Laffer Curve says that a cut in tax rates will bring in higher government revenue (which has been shown during Reagan and Shrub Jr that it's not true). If you're cutting from high (as in 70% and above) tax rates then yes a tax cut will pay for itself however moving from a 40% tax rate to a 35% tax rate creates deficits.

As I expected, the problem here is that you don't understand the Laffer Curve not that the Laffer Curve is flawed.

The top portion of the Laffer Curve predicts that cutting tax rates will increase revenue, but the bottom portion predicts that further cuts will cause decreases in revenue.

http://finxknowledgeatcbsdu.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/lc-1.gif

Of course, the value of maximum revenue point and the exact shape of the curve will vary depending on the complex interaction of a lot of different variables other than tax rates, but that's not a flaw in the concept, just an inherent difficulty in it's application.

patteeu
05-19-2009, 09:27 AM
anyone ever hear of the KC native curve?

..didn't think so.

LMAO

KC native
05-19-2009, 09:28 AM
Since Laffer is a Shrill with no business giving advice I'd love for our own non-partisan economic genious to layout why higher taxes bring jobs, higher levels of prosperity and economic growth.

Further, I'd love to see why people are moving out of high tax states in droves, and why low tax states are growing--since it has nothing to do with taxes.

Come on KC Native, educate us!
Posted via Mobile Device

Let's take Texas for example. When oil and natural gas took off, employment in Texas took off. This state's growth has been fueled by the oil and gas business. Texas also has vast open spaces where wind energy is being put into to place. These three sectors alone are responsible for most of Texas' growth. Don't you think that these dynamics are a little more relevant that taxes rates in explaining growth?

This editorial was focused on income tax rates while ignoring the total tax picture. Yes, Texas has no income tax but we do have high sales tax (even on most groceries) and we have high property taxes. You can't make claims that growth is dependent on low tax rates while ignoring the differences in tax environments in different areas.

KC native
05-19-2009, 09:29 AM
garble garble garble.

Hey Elvis, maybe you should lay off the benzos so I can understand you.

KC native
05-19-2009, 09:32 AM
As I expected, the problem here is that you don't understand the Laffer Curve not that the Laffer Curve is flawed.

The top portion of the Laffer Curve predicts that cutting tax rates will increase revenue, but the bottom portion predicts that further cuts will cause decreases in revenue.

http://finxknowledgeatcbsdu.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/lc-1.gif

Of course, the value of maximum revenue point and the exact shape of the curve will vary depending on the complex interaction of a lot of different variables other than tax rates, but that's not a flaw in the concept, just an inherent difficulty in it's application.

Ah, that's a nice symmetrical graph which completely ignores reality. Anyways, I've never said it was completely invalid however when you look at the graph my point stands. When you're moving from a very high tax rate then the curve works however when you're moving from lower rates to even lower rates it doesn't pay for itself. Thanks for showing that you don't know how to read a post nor a graph.

stevieray
05-19-2009, 09:33 AM
Hey Elvis, maybe you should lay off the benzos so I can understand you.

stings, huh?

KC native
05-19-2009, 09:34 AM
stings, huh?

Um, not at all. You were trying to attack the messenger instead of challenge my argument. Doesn't surprise me because you are far from being intelligent.

stevieray
05-19-2009, 09:35 AM
Um, not at all. You were trying to attack the messenger instead of challenge my argument. Doesn't surprise me because you are far from being intelligent.

sure it does, you keep responding.

KC native
05-19-2009, 09:36 AM
sure it does, you keep responding.

ROFL So how about you address the merits of my argument instead of lodging ad hominem attacks?

patteeu
05-19-2009, 09:37 AM
Just because you don't understand my criticisms doesn't make them untrue. Also, I'm not asking for exhaustive detail but rather an honest argument. This editorial is full of logical fallacies (specifically if A happens and B happens then C must be because of A and B) and cherry picking. If you look at the changing dates and metrics he uses it's quite clear to anyone with a financial background that he is cherry picking his data to fit his argument.

It didn't contain any of those types of fallacies.

There may be (and probably is some) cherry picking going on. That's the case in almost all editorials like this that are intended to influence people. Are you just starting to recognize this?

For an honest argument to take place, the person taking the opposing view would have to actually become familiar with the studies these men based their editorial on and they would have to take them to task on the basis of knowledge not handwaving. You're unqualified to participate in such an honest argument. You can't even identify the degree of honesty present in the Laffer/Moore arguments, you can only make baseless assertions.

That still doesn't explain how it's any different from hiring 10 people who make the same amount as 1 person. They claim that higher taxes cause businesses to hire more low skill employees. Since a low skill worker is going to be less productive they are going to have to hire more low skill workers to make up for the difference in productivity. Net effect is no different.

They're talking about a progressive tax environment. If it takes 10 people making 10k per year to do the work of 1 person at 100k, it's cheaper to hire the 10 low income workers than the one high income earner because the progressive tax system imposes a higher total tax on the high income earner than it does on all the low income earners combined.

So, what do you have to say now that I've shown you that your claims of errors are incorrect?

You've made it even more clear that you have no business criticizing economic analyses.

stevieray
05-19-2009, 09:38 AM
ROFL So how about you address the merits of my argument instead of lodging ad hominem attacks?

watch out! he'll cry and post your neg rep!

SBK
05-19-2009, 09:42 AM
Let's take Texas for example. When oil and natural gas took off, employment in Texas took off. This state's growth has been fueled by the oil and gas business. Texas also has vast open spaces where wind energy is being put into to place. These three sectors alone are responsible for most of Texas' growth. Don't you think that these dynamics are a little more relevant that taxes rates in explaining growth?

This editorial was focused on income tax rates while ignoring the total tax picture. Yes, Texas has no income tax but we do have high sales tax (even on most groceries) and we have high property taxes. You can't make claims that growth is dependent on low tax rates while ignoring the differences in tax environments in different areas.

So why are people leaving high tax states in droves, and why are low tax states population growing?
Posted via Mobile Device

patteeu
05-19-2009, 09:45 AM
Ah, that's a nice symmetrical graph which completely ignores reality. Anyways, I've never said it was completely invalid however when you look at the graph my point stands. When you're moving from a very high tax rate then the curve works however when you're moving from lower rates to even lower rates it doesn't pay for itself. Thanks for showing that you don't know how to read a post nor a graph.

1. You didn't say it was completely invalid, but you did say that it only worked at 70% marginal tax rates. You were clearly wrong and your inability to admit it makes you look even worse. Your "point" about Laffer's theory being invalid at low rates is obliterated by the graph.

2. Your horribly misstated "point" about tax cuts not paying for themselves when marginal rates cut from 40% to 35% is neither supported nor refuted by the graph. If the maximum revenue point on the graph takes place at a marginal rate of 30%, you're wrong. If it takes place at a marginal rate of 50%, you're right. The Laffer curve doesn't give us that answer.

3. One of us doesn't know how to read a graph, and like your assessment of Laffer's theory, your opinion on which of us it is is wrong.

KC native
05-19-2009, 09:47 AM
It didn't contain any of those types of fallacies.

Really, so this paragraph doesn't fit that fallacy?

Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.


There may be (and probably is some) cherry picking going on. That's the case in almost all editorials like this that are intended to influence people. Are you just starting to recognize this?

For an honest argument to take place, the person taking the opposing view would have to actually become familiar with the studies these men based their editorial on and they would have to take them to task on the basis of knowledge not handwaving. You're unqualified to participate in such an honest argument. You can't even identify the degree of honesty present in the Laffer/Moore arguments, you can only make baseless assertions.

So, you're going to conveniently ignore that I said it's not completely invalid? Check out the quote from earlier in this thread.

Ah, that's a nice symmetrical graph which completely ignores reality. Anyways, I've never said it was completely invalid however when you look at the graph my point stands. When you're moving from a very high tax rate then the curve works however when you're moving from lower rates to even lower rates it doesn't pay for itself. Thanks for showing that you don't know how to read a post nor a graph.



They're talking about a progressive tax environment. If it takes 10 people making 10k per year to do the work of 1 person at 100k, it's cheaper to hire the 10 low income workers than the one high income earner because the progressive tax system imposes a higher total tax on the high income earner than it does on all the low income earners combined.

You've made it even more clear that you have no business criticizing economic analyses.

How is it cheaper to the business patty? Did you fail algebra? The business isn't concerned with what the individual's tax rates are. If the total compensation expense is the same for 10 people as 1 person, then it makes no difference to the business.

patteeu
05-19-2009, 09:47 AM
ROFL So how about you address the merits of my argument instead of lodging ad hominem attacks?

You mean like calling someone a "shrill" (whatever that is) and criticizing their mutual fund management results?

KC native
05-19-2009, 09:51 AM
1. You didn't say it was completely invalid, but you did say that it only worked at 70% marginal tax rates. You were clearly wrong and your inability to admit it makes you look even worse. Your "point" about Laffer's theory being invalid at low rates is obliterated by the graph.

2. Your horribly misstated "point" about tax cuts not paying for themselves when marginal rates cut from 40% to 35% is neither supported nor refuted by the graph. If the maximum revenue point on the graph takes place at a marginal rate of 30%, you're wrong. If it takes place at a marginal rate of 50%, you're right. The Laffer curve doesn't give us that answer.

3. One of us doesn't know how to read a graph, and like your assessment of Laffer's theory, your opinion on which of us it is is wrong.

Sometimes I forget how fun your contortions can be. 70% wasn't meant as a bright line but it's apparent you want to take it as such. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that unless you're moving from very high tax rates tax cuts don't pay for themselves. This is not only illustrated by the graph but also by the real world experiences of Shrub Jr and Ronnie Raygun.

KC native
05-19-2009, 09:52 AM
You mean like calling someone a "shrill" (whatever that is) and criticizing their mutual fund management results?

If you didn't notice I addressed his argument point by point.

patteeu
05-19-2009, 09:58 AM
Really, so this paragraph doesn't fit that fallacy?

No, it doesn't.

So, you're going to conveniently ignore that I said it's not completely invalid? Check out the quote from earlier in this thread.

I hadn't seen it when I posted this, but I've addressed it in a subsequent reply and it has no bearing on my comment here. If anything, it illustrates that you not only make baseless assertions, but that you make false assertions as well.

How is it cheaper to the business patty? Did you fail algebra? The business isn't concerned with what the individual's tax rates are. If the total compensation expense is the same for 10 people as 1 person, then it makes no difference to the business.

The key quote from the OP article that you are either missing or that you don't understand was "a relatively unfavorable tax will cause gross wages to adjust". That means that the authors are suggesting that to remain competitive in the labor market, businesses must increase the gross compensation offered to their employees to account for increases in individual income taxes. In other words, the WHOLE PREMISE OF THE STATEMENT is that businesses ARE concerned with what the individual's tax rates are. You may disagree with the authors on this premise (and with the Feldstein study on which it is based), but you can't completely change the argument into something it's not so that you can say it makes no sense.

KC native
05-19-2009, 10:00 AM
No, it doesn't.



I hadn't seen it when I posted this, but I've addressed it in a subsequent reply and it has no bearing on my comment here. If anything, it illustrates that you not only make baseless assertions, but that you make false assertions as well.



The key quote from the OP article that you are either missing or that you don't understand was "a relatively unfavorable tax will cause gross wages to adjust". That means that the authors are suggesting that to remain competitive in the labor market, businesses must increase the gross compensation offered to their employees to account for increases in individual income taxes. In other words, the WHOLE PREMISE OF THE STATEMENT is that businesses ARE concerned with what the individual's tax rates are. You may disagree with the authors on this premise (and with the Feldstein study on which it is based), but you can't completely change the argument into something it's not so that you can say it makes no sense.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rCDY4PpaevI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rCDY4PpaevI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

patteeu
05-19-2009, 10:01 AM
Sometimes I forget how fun your contortions can be. 70% wasn't meant as a bright line but it's apparent you want to take it as such. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that unless you're moving from very high tax rates tax cuts don't pay for themselves. This is not only illustrated by the graph but also by the real world experiences of Shrub Jr and Ronnie Raygun.

Are you too stupid to understand that that's a part of the Laffer theory that you criticized as being only applicable at high rates (no bright line assumption here). The Laffer theory applies AT ALL RATES. The Laffer theory predicts that some tax cuts WON'T pay for themselves. Nothing you've said here undermines the Laffer theory at all. Laffer owns you.

patteeu
05-19-2009, 10:03 AM
Reduced to youtube posts again? Is that your form of this:

http://punditdad.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/wve-white-flag-260.jpg

KC native
05-19-2009, 10:04 AM
Are you too stupid to understand that that's a part of the Laffer theory that you criticized as being only applicable at high rates (no bright line assumption here). The Laffer theory applies AT ALL RATES. The Laffer theory predicts that some tax cuts WON'T pay for themselves. Nothing you've said here undermines the Laffer theory at all. Laffer owns you.

Again I forgot how you like to contort yourself. I'm not trying to invalidate his overall theory just simply blow holes in this piece of propaganda.

Chief Faithful
05-19-2009, 10:05 AM
Let's take Texas for example. When oil and natural gas took off, employment in Texas took off. This state's growth has been fueled by the oil and gas business. Texas also has vast open spaces where wind energy is being put into to place. These three sectors alone are responsible for most of Texas' growth. Don't you think that these dynamics are a little more relevant that taxes rates in explaining growth?

This editorial was focused on income tax rates while ignoring the total tax picture. Yes, Texas has no income tax but we do have high sales tax (even on most groceries) and we have high property taxes. You can't make claims that growth is dependent on low tax rates while ignoring the differences in tax environments in different areas.

In my industry, Telecom has left many states for Texas. Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin have all become major Telecom cities. Most of the jobs came from Chicago, LA and New Jersey for exactly the reasons stated by the author. Nashville is another city that had minimal influence, but has become a major Telecom city in just the last few years.

KC native
05-19-2009, 10:06 AM
Reduced to youtube posts again? Is that your form of this:

http://punditdad.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/wve-white-flag-260.jpg

No, it's that I realize that you will attempt to word game your way out of anything. I'm not going to hold your hand in the hope that you will someday recognize you are wrong. You are a dead ender plain and simple. You will hold onto your failed policies and leaders until you go to your grave.

KC native
05-19-2009, 10:08 AM
In my industry, Telecom has left many states for Texas. Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin have all become major Telecom cities. Most of the jobs came from Chicago, LA and New Jersey for exactly the reasons stated by the author. Nashville is another city that had minimal influence, but has become a major Telecom city in just the last few years.

...:shake: Couldn't have anything to do with the massive property tax rebates that municipalities give these call centers to relocate to Texas could it? It's all due to income taxes right?

patteeu
05-19-2009, 10:14 AM
Again I forgot how you like to contort yourself. I'm not trying to invalidate his overall theory just simply blow holes in this piece of propaganda.

You were trying to suggest that his overall theory was inapplicable under some low tax circumstances. You've been corrected on this but you still haven't admitted your mistake. When you make major mistakes on the easy stuff why should anyone take your ideologically driven hole blowing seriously?

KC native
05-19-2009, 10:20 AM
You were trying to suggest that his overall theory was inapplicable under some low tax circumstances. You've been corrected on this but you still haven't admitted your mistake. When you make major mistakes on the easy stuff why should anyone take your ideologically driven hole blowing seriously?

FTR you haven't corrected me on shit. You just like to twist phrases and draw your own conclusions despite what is written.


Finally, Ideological driven? ROFL

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SgtWIx2zLtk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SgtWIx2zLtk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Garcia Bronco
05-19-2009, 10:20 AM
Higher taxes force people to move. It's fact...and the richer your are the easier it is to move.

patteeu
05-19-2009, 10:21 AM
This is not only illustrated by the graph but also by the real world experiences of Shrub Jr and Ronnie Raygun.

BTW, both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush cut a lot of taxes at the lower end of the income spectrum. In many cases, they removed people from the income tax rolls altogether (effectively reducing their rates to 0% and, in some cases where tax credits were involved, negative rates). What does Art Laffer's curve tells us about cuts like these? It tells us that revenues will drop, of course. Any assessment of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts with respect to their impact on revenue must distinguish between the impacts of rate cuts for the lowest brackets and those for the highest.

patteeu
05-19-2009, 10:22 AM
Higher taxes force people to move. It's fact...and the richer your are the easier it is to move.

KC naive says we shouldn't believe such propaganda. LOL

Garcia Bronco
05-19-2009, 10:26 AM
KC naive says we shouldn't believe such propaganda. LOL

It's simple market knowledge. It's why I get amused when people rail on say subsides. Why would a government ever give out a subside? To lure business to their locale. Same with taxes. Why should I live in a state with a bizillion "sin" taxes, high sales tax, high property tax, and high income tax? When other states have some or none of these at lower rates. Other states know this and are trying to up their taxbase as well. At some point high taxes actually reduce revenue. It's a fairly simple concept.

patteeu
05-19-2009, 10:58 AM
It's simple market knowledge. It's why I get amused when people rail on say subsides. Why would a government ever give out a subside? To lure business to their locale. Same with taxes. Why should I live in a state with a bizillion "sin" taxes, high sales tax, high property tax, and high income tax? When other states have some or none of these at lower rates. Other states know this and are trying to up their taxbase as well. At some point high taxes actually reduce revenue. It's a fairly simple concept.

You'd think.

SBK
05-19-2009, 11:05 AM
Here's a simple question, if you could move to Florida and save $13,500 a DAY in taxes would you stay in New York?
Posted via Mobile Device

talastan
05-19-2009, 11:21 AM
This is exactly why I hope that Missouri state legislature gets the Fair Tax ballot initative approved. With no personal or business state income taxes, and a minor 1.1% increase in current state sales taxes we'll be looking at a lot of industry and economic growth right here in Missouri. Bring some of those companies here to hire people. :clap: Not to mention everyone would only pay taxes based on what they consume.

Garcia Bronco
05-19-2009, 11:22 AM
This is exactly why I hope that Missouri state legislature gets the Fair Tax ballot initative approved. With no personal or business state income taxes, and a minor 1.1% increase in current state sales taxes we'll be looking at a lot of industry and economic growth right here in Missouri. Bring some of those companies here to hire people. :clap:

Billy Idol gets it, I don't understand why everyone else doesn't. :)

talastan
05-19-2009, 11:24 AM
Billy Idol gets it, I don't understand why everyone else doesn't. :)

Great movie reference!!! Rep Garcia!! :thumb:

mikey23545
05-19-2009, 11:41 AM
Again I forgot how you like to contort yourself. I'm not trying to invalidate his overall theory just simply blow holes in this piece of propaganda.

Only a person who vastly overestimates their own intelligence could ask for proof of something as axiomatic as this.

If you really can't understand why high taxes in a given state can compel someone to move to a lower tax state, you really should stop posting.

KC native
05-19-2009, 11:44 AM
Only a person who vastly overestimates their own intelligence could ask for proof of something as axiomatic as this.

If you really can't understand why high taxes in a given state can compel someone to move to a lower tax state, you really should stop posting.

Keep working on that reading comprehension Mikey.

patteeu
05-19-2009, 11:49 AM
Keep working on that reading comprehension Mikey.

Ironic.

mikey23545
05-19-2009, 11:51 AM
Keep working on that reading comprehension Mikey.

Perhaps you can explain to me where my comprehension is lacking.

I'll keep in mind that you've been proven wrong about everything else in this thread so far.

SBK
05-19-2009, 12:03 PM
Keep working on that reading comprehension Mikey.

LMAO

Jenson71
05-19-2009, 12:04 PM
Higher taxes force people to move. It's fact...and the richer your are the easier it is to move.

I don't know if it forces people, but the theory is rational, and applies to the inverse. We need to soak the lower income people. They can't afford to move anyway. Plus, if we soak the rich and lose their business, who will pay for the campaign funds? It is important that the average campaign for city officials, state representatives, and Congressmen remain skyhigh. The advertising firms who design the advertisements in New York and the manufacturing companies in China who make the t-shirts and the Mexicans who make the pins need work. And that ultimately helps the American worker, because they stay in their country, and allow the American to have a job here, and pay the taxes the protected class won't have to. And let's face it. Lower income people are second class citizens. I'm sorry, but if you don't work hard enough to earn over a quarter a million dollars a year, you don't deserve a government that works for you. The rich worked harder than others, and that needs to be promoted.

It's impossible to stay rich in New Jersey. I was just there. The houses in the suburbs cost over, on average, $500,000 and the population continues to grow, but I saw a for sale sign, and that's a trend.

The comparison between New Hampshire schools and New Jersey schools is right on the money. Obviously, the difference between the education system depends completely on state tax methods. New Jersey schools are worse because of the higher taxes. If they would just lower taxes, the schools would be so much better. Great point. I'm glad someone said it. Similarily, I went to a Catholic school. We had very little funding. Our teachers got less, our technology was not as great, our equipment was older, all compared to West High the public school. Yet, we do better in testing and percentage going to college. So weird.

SBK
05-19-2009, 12:05 PM
B. Thomas Golisano (owner of the Buffalo Sabres) is moving to Florida because he's tired of the snow.

http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/672153.html?imw=Y

talastan
05-19-2009, 12:05 PM
Ironic.

Come on Mr Patteeu, it isn't nice to call some one an I ron. :)

KC native
05-19-2009, 12:14 PM
Ironic.

Only to someone twists statements into something they're not and then feeds off of the echo chamber in here.

***SPRAYER
05-19-2009, 12:29 PM
Where are all the new, green jobs?

Garcia Bronco
05-19-2009, 01:53 PM
I don't know if it forces people, but the theory is rational, and applies to the inverse. We need to soak the lower income people.

No. We need not soak anyone, just reduce the role of the Federal Government and stop this madness of spending from a supposed bottomless pit. If you've ever worked in a bank you know that each transaction has a credit and debit. The Federal Governemnt does not operate this way.

Jenson71
05-19-2009, 04:23 PM
No. We need not soak anyone, just reduce the role of the Federal Government and stop this madness of spending from a supposed bottomless pit. If you've ever worked in a bank you know that each transaction has a credit and debit. The Federal Governemnt does not operate this way.

I'm not against reducing federal government spending. On certain things. I'm for having a balanced budget.

SBK
05-19-2009, 04:41 PM
I'm sure KC Native is too busy posting on the football side of this board, but he still hasn't answered my questions. I'm going to head over there and find him.

Garcia Bronco
05-19-2009, 04:52 PM
I'm not against reducing federal government spending. On certain things. I'm for having a balanced budget.

I am aginst them spending on anything other than defense, roads, and foreign policy. I am against them getting involved in anything not gratned to them in the US Constitution. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.*


*10th Amendment

SBK
05-19-2009, 04:55 PM
I am aginst them spending on anything other than defense, roads, and foreign policy. I am against them getting involved in anything not gratned to them in the US Constitution. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.*


*10th Amendment

HERE HERE!!

Have you been following the gun case in Montana?

BucEyedPea
05-19-2009, 04:58 PM
I'm not against reducing federal government spending. On certain things. I'm for having a balanced budget.

Empty words son. With what you support that would never be possible.

Jenson71
05-19-2009, 05:39 PM
I am aginst them spending on anything other than defense, roads, and foreign policy. I am against them getting involved in anything not gratned to them in the US Constitution. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.*


*10th Amendment

Would you agree that the Air Force is unconstitutional?

SBK
05-19-2009, 05:42 PM
Would you agree that the Air Force is unconstitutional?

Are they not defense?
Posted via Mobile Device

BucEyedPea
05-19-2009, 05:42 PM
Would you agree that the Air Force is unconstitutional?

No it's very specifically Constitutional. "provide for the common defense" plus we get to declare war when we want too. ;)

Defense, at least, is one form of spending that is Constitutional.

Now the extent of our FP empire is another question.

Jenson71
05-19-2009, 05:43 PM
Are they not defense?
Posted via Mobile Device

What clause is that?

Jenson71
05-19-2009, 05:45 PM
The Constitution allows for an Army and a Navy.

The Air Force and Marines are unconstitutional following Garcia Bronco's logic.

***SPRAYER
05-19-2009, 05:49 PM
The Constitution allows for an Army and a Navy.

The Air Force and Marines are unconstitutional following Garcia Bronco's logic.

Marines are part of the Navy, and the Air Force was orginally the army air corps.

You do realize that in in the 1770's a clause allowing for an Air Force would have been pretty fascinating.

Jenson71
05-19-2009, 05:57 PM
Marines are part of the Navy, and the Air Force was orginally the army air corps.

You do realize that in in the 1770's a clause allowing for an Air Force would have been pretty fascinating.

If there is any separation, they are unconstitutional. The Constitution does not say anything about these branches. Hey, us purists don't mess around. The Constitution said everything it needed to say in 1786. Technological and social developments make no difference to the Constitution. Welfare is unconstitutional. The Air Force is unconstitutional. And so are roads unless they are specifically marked "Post Roads" and only used for Post office purpose. Interstates are unconstitutional.

KC Dan
05-19-2009, 05:58 PM
Marines are part of the Navy, and the Air Force was orginally the army air corps.

You do realize that in in the 1770's a clause allowing for an Air Force would have been pretty fascinating.
:D

Jenson71
05-19-2009, 05:59 PM
Are they not defense?
Posted via Mobile Device

You're talking about the preamble, which says "promote the general Welfare" -- ha, I don't think Garcia is going to agree with you here. Promote the general Welfare!? Are you socialist man? You'll grow up someday and understand how to interpret the Constitution in the correct way.

BucEyedPea
05-19-2009, 06:05 PM
You're talking about the preamble, which says "promote the general Welfare" -- ha, I don't think Garcia is going to agree with you here. Promote the general Welfare!? Are you socialist man? You'll grow up someday and understand how to interpret the Constitution in the correct way.

Promote is not the word "provide."

And where "provide" is used ( elsewhere) it is still subject to the "specific and enumerate powers" that the Feds have and nothing more. Welfare, social security, unemployment compensation, helping people keep their farms are not in there. Madison wrote to Hamilton warning him that line did not mean a grant of expansionary powers but only to what was specific and enumerated.

And if we're allowed to declare war, just what do you expect to fight with?

stevieray
05-19-2009, 06:25 PM
You do realize that in in the 1770's a clause allowing for an Air Force would have been pretty fascinating.

just slightly..ROFL

CrazyPhuD
05-19-2009, 06:25 PM
So this is actually a topic that I can post on with personal experience. As to references if higher taxes can make people move? 100% yes, even if its a modest increase.

In my case I have the choice on a tax event, I can live in CA and pay 10% or I can move to TX and pay zero. When that happens I will move out of state and establish residency elsewhere because I can. Before I had always assumed that I would come back but given some of the ridiculous behavior of the state it's likely I will not. So not only do they lose any income from me for this tax even they also lose, future property tax, sales tax, and income tax from me.

Why would I stay and pay the 10%? There are plenty of interesting places to live where I wouldn't have too. All CA does when they have this is lose out on current and future income. Good luck with that.

We live in a digitally connected world and can mostly do business anywhere. Given that the only reason you would live somewhere is because it's advantageous for me to do so. You know longer HAVE to live anywhere and as a result you go to the best place for you. When politicians don't get this they end up running oh....21 billion dollar short falls.....

Jenson71
05-19-2009, 07:36 PM
Promote is not the word "provide."

And where "provide" is used ( elsewhere) it is still subject to the "specific and enumerate powers" that the Feds have and nothing more. Welfare, social security, unemployment compensation, helping people keep their farms are not in there. Madison wrote to Hamilton warning him that line did not mean a grant of expansionary powers but only to what was specific and enumerated.

Oh shoot. It's like you've found The Da Vinci Code.

And if we're allowed to declare war, just what do you expect to fight with

army and navy.

BucEyedPea
05-19-2009, 08:09 PM
Oh shoot. It's like you've found The Da Vinci Code.
No I think that's for cafeteria Catholics.



army and navy.

Anything that provides for the common defense works there. There's no limit there.

Jenson71
05-19-2009, 08:15 PM
No I think that's for cafeteria Catholics.

What are you talking about now? Is this a joke? Can I put this in the Fail Thread?

Anything that provides for the common defense works there. There's no limit there.

How about a mandatory high school military group?

BucEyedPea
05-19-2009, 08:22 PM
What are you talking about now? Is this a joke? Can I put this in the Fail Thread?
Of course.



How about a mandatory high school military group?

Heh. Heh! Absolutely not.

Jenson71
05-19-2009, 08:25 PM
Oh. Okay.

Garcia Bronco
05-20-2009, 11:02 AM
HERE HERE!!

Have you been following the gun case in Montana?

I have not.

Garcia Bronco
05-20-2009, 11:11 AM
If there is any separation, they are unconstitutional. The Constitution does not say anything about these branches. Hey, us purists don't mess around. The Constitution said everything it needed to say in 1786.

Not it didn't and no it doesn't. This is the foundation of what our framers designed: A living document that can be changed over time. It's the beauty of the contract to restrain our Federal and State Governments. But the contract can only be altered through the amendment process. Now if you think the Air Force is unconstitutional I would disagree, however if it were truly deemed so an amendment needs to passed.

talastan
05-20-2009, 11:21 AM
Not it didn't and no it doesn't. This is the foundation of what our framers designed: A living document that can be changed over time. It's the beauty of the contract to restrain our Federal and State Governments. But the contract can only be altered through the amendment process. Now if you think the Air Force is unconstitutional I would disagree, however if it were truly deemed so an amendment needs to passed.

This :clap:, the problem right now is with overuse of earmarks, judicial legislation, and certain executive orders, you're seeing the purposeful avoidance of the procedure as set up by the Constitution. Jenson your posts lead me to believe that you see it as either black or white. That the Constitution is either ironclad, or somehow outdated and invalid. Whether that is the intent of your message I don't know. The Constitution is already all the law this land needs. It has the ability to adapt and change through the amendment process. It is being destroyed because of the subversive and exponential growth of the federal government. The some 30+ states that are discussing sovereignty laws would lead one to believe that this growth of federal powers and spending is seen as a threat by more than just a handful of people.

patteeu
05-20-2009, 11:41 AM
This :clap:, the problem right now is with overuse of earmarks, judicial legislation, and certain executive orders, you're seeing the purposeful avoidance of the procedure as set up by the Constitution. Jenson your posts lead me to believe that you see it as either black or white. That the Constitution is either ironclad, or somehow outdated and invalid. Whether that is the intent of your message I don't know. The Constitution is already all the law this land needs. It has the ability to adapt and change through the amendment process. It is being destroyed because of the subversive and exponential growth of the federal government. The some 30+ states that are discussing sovereignty laws would lead one to believe that this growth of federal powers and spending is seen as a threat by more than just a handful of people.

Jenson71 is making fun of people who think the constitution should have fixed meaning and should only be changed via the specified amendment processes. He actually believes it should mean whatever the enlightened elite of the day think it should mean.

Jenson71
05-20-2009, 12:18 PM
Not it didn't and no it doesn't. This is the foundation of what our framers designed: A living document that can be changed over time. It's the beauty of the contract to restrain our Federal and State Governments. But the contract can only be altered through the amendment process. Now if you think the Air Force is unconstitutional I would disagree, however if it were truly deemed so an amendment needs to passed.

Scalia doesn't think it's a living document. He abhors that word - "living".

But the Air Force is not altering the Constitution. I doubt Scalia would ever say the Air Force is unconsitutional, but he would have to admit that taking a strictly literalist approach to the Constitution, an Air Force would need an amendment to be legal. But we know we can apply some logic and reason to deduct that the Air Force is constitutional, implicitly.

Just as we can apply some logic and reason to deduct that judicial review is valid, though there is nothing about it in the Constitution. Certainly, you can disagree with interpretations, as Jefferson did. But you are attempting to throw out the tub with the water, or the water with the tub, or the sink and the dishwater, when you demand that there is no room for logical deduction in dealing with the Constitution, and so the federal government can only spend on post roads, defense, and foreign policy. We can also deduct that other various federal works are constitutional, though they go beyond that. That's fine if you disagree, but I want to point out that you are preaching opinion more than fact, if you consider, like I think you do, that various federal initiatives/programs/etc. are "altering" the Constitution.

You take the line that because the Constitution seems explicit, then its meaning is neither elusive nor difficult to interpret. You may have good reason to believe this. But I would say that 200 plus years of case law shows that as the country has changed, a gap sometimes exists between the Constitution and reality. And it is up to people to determine how to amend that gap. And this isn't just something that started after the Founders all died. Many times the rhetoric makes it seem like the Founders had this pure system that was corrupted when the last one died, and everyone screwed it up since then. What a simple view heavy on rhetoric but ignoring of any historical fact! The Founders themselves disagreed before, during, and after, on interpretations of what certain clauses of the Constitution meant. They even differed on certain basic things that we know are absolute. The New Jersey Plan wanted one house in the legislature. The Virginia Plan wanted legislative power to allow for a veto authority over state legislation. Wow! That's quite a federal government there, right? Yes, some wanted that. In the end, there was a compromise. The Constitution gave us two houses of legislature. One house based on population, the other with two votes from each state. The Legislature has the authority to levy taxes and regulate commerce, and the authority to compel state compliance with national policies. The executive has a single President, chosen by an electoral college, with removal by Congress, and there is a Supreme Court (to what extent are there even federal courts in the Constitution? I think that was the Judiciary Act of 1789 that established those) that is appointed by the President and confirmed by Senate.

patteeu
05-20-2009, 12:50 PM
Scalia doesn't think it's a living document. He abhors that word - "living".

But the Air Force is not altering the Constitution. I doubt Scalia would ever say the Air Force is unconsitutional, but he would have to admit that taking a strictly literalist approach to the Constitution, an Air Force would need an amendment to be legal. But we know we can apply some logic and reason to deduct that the Air Force is constitutional, implicitly.

Just as we can apply some logic and reason to deduct that judicial review is valid, though there is nothing about it in the Constitution. Certainly, you can disagree with interpretations, as Jefferson did. But you are attempting to throw out the tub with the water, or the water with the tub, or the sink and the dishwater, when you demand that there is no room for logical deduction in dealing with the Constitution, and so the federal government can only spend on post roads, defense, and foreign policy. We can also deduct that other various federal works are constitutional, though they go beyond that. That's fine if you disagree, but I want to point out that you are preaching opinion more than fact, if you consider, like I think you do, that various federal initiatives/programs/etc. are "altering" the Constitution.

You take the line that because the Constitution seems explicit, then its meaning is neither elusive nor difficult to interpret. You may have good reason to believe this. But I would say that 200 plus years of case law shows that as the country has changed, a gap sometimes exists between the Constitution and reality. And it is up to people to determine how to amend that gap. And this isn't just something that started after the Founders all died. Many times the rhetoric makes it seem like the Founders had this pure system that was corrupted when the last one died, and everyone screwed it up since then. What a simple view heavy on rhetoric but ignoring of any historical fact! The Founders themselves disagreed before, during, and after, on interpretations of what certain clauses of the Constitution meant. They even differed on certain basic things that we know are absolute. The New Jersey Plan wanted one house in the legislature. The Virginia Plan wanted legislative power to allow for a veto authority over state legislation. Wow! That's quite a federal government there, right? Yes, some wanted that. In the end, there was a compromise. The Constitution gave us two houses of legislature. One house based on population, the other with two votes from each state. The Legislature has the authority to levy taxes and regulate commerce, and the authority to compel state compliance with national policies. The executive has a single President, chosen by an electoral college, with removal by Congress, and there is a Supreme Court (to what extent are there even federal courts in the Constitution? I think that was the Judiciary Act of 1789 that established those) that is appointed by the President and confirmed by Senate.

Scalia agrees with the same kind of "living document" that Garcia is talking about.

Garcia Bronco
05-20-2009, 02:38 PM
Scalia doesn't think it's a living document. He abhors that word - "living".

But the Air Force is not altering the Constitution. I doubt Scalia would ever say the Air Force is unconsitutional, but he would have to admit that taking a strictly literalist approach to the Constitution, an Air Force would need an amendment to be legal. But we know we can apply some logic and reason to deduct that the Air Force is constitutional, implicitly.

Just as we can apply some logic and reason to deduct that judicial review is valid, though there is nothing about it in the Constitution. Certainly, you can disagree with interpretations, as Jefferson did. But you are attempting to throw out the tub with the water, or the water with the tub, or the sink and the dishwater, when you demand that there is no room for logical deduction in dealing with the Constitution, and so the federal government can only spend on post roads, defense, and foreign policy. We can also deduct that other various federal works are constitutional, though they go beyond that. That's fine if you disagree, but I want to point out that you are preaching opinion more than fact, if you consider, like I think you do, that various federal initiatives/programs/etc. are "altering" the Constitution.

You take the line that because the Constitution seems explicit, then its meaning is neither elusive nor difficult to interpret. You may have good reason to believe this. But I would say that 200 plus years of case law shows that as the country has changed, a gap sometimes exists between the Constitution and reality. And it is up to people to determine how to amend that gap. And this isn't just something that started after the Founders all died. Many times the rhetoric makes it seem like the Founders had this pure system that was corrupted when the last one died, and everyone screwed it up since then. What a simple view heavy on rhetoric but ignoring of any historical fact! The Founders themselves disagreed before, during, and after, on interpretations of what certain clauses of the Constitution meant. They even differed on certain basic things that we know are absolute. The New Jersey Plan wanted one house in the legislature. The Virginia Plan wanted legislative power to allow for a veto authority over state legislation. Wow! That's quite a federal government there, right? Yes, some wanted that. In the end, there was a compromise. The Constitution gave us two houses of legislature. One house based on population, the other with two votes from each state. The Legislature has the authority to levy taxes and regulate commerce, and the authority to compel state compliance with national policies. The executive has a single President, chosen by an electoral college, with removal by Congress, and there is a Supreme Court (to what extent are there even federal courts in the Constitution? I think that was the Judiciary Act of 1789 that established those) that is appointed by the President and confirmed by Senate.

It's certainly a living document. And no it's not perfect and the same issues we have today we had then. Certainly there is strict and loose interpretations of the contract. Jefferson practiced both in his time. Very strict on a national bank and very loose on the LA Purchase. I mean where does it say the President can buy land? It doesn't say he can't do it either. Since the 9th and 10th amendments were written and ratified after Art I-III, they cancel out any conflicts within the document itself.

SBK
05-20-2009, 03:21 PM
I have not.

If I heard correctly, the Montana legislature has written a bill that declares if a gun is made in Montana, and remains in Montana then there can be no federal regulation. I believe Texas and another state are writing the same law.

The law is being written to overturn some old Supreme Court legislation that allowed for federal regulation of an individual farmers wheat, which he was growing to make bread for his own family, because it could possibly interfere with commerce.

If this decision would be overturned, and many believe it would, based on the 10th amendment, then TONS of stuff the federal government does, and that people feel impedes on states rights would be overturned as well.

It's a huge case, I should find some links and start a thread.

Garcia Bronco
05-20-2009, 03:32 PM
If I heard correctly, the Montana legislature has written a bill that declares if a gun is made in Montana, and remains in Montana then there can be no federal regulation. I believe Texas and another state are writing the same law.

The law is being written to overturn some old Supreme Court legislation that allowed for federal regulation of an individual farmers wheat, which he was growing to make bread for his own family, because it could possibly interfere with commerce.

If this decision would be overturned, and many believe it would, based on the 10th amendment, then TONS of stuff the federal government does, and that people feel impedes on states rights would be overturned as well.

It's a huge case, I should find some links and start a thread.

IMO the Montana approach is sound. It's like pot. The federal governemnt feels likes it's allowed to regulate this through some ridiculous interpretation of the ISC clause. They might have a point, but if state X wants to legalize it and the pot doesn't leave the state then the Federal Governemnt under the 10th amendment has no right to regulate anything about it.

Hydrae
05-20-2009, 03:51 PM
If I heard correctly, the Montana legislature has written a bill that declares if a gun is made in Montana, and remains in Montana then there can be no federal regulation. I believe Texas and another state are writing the same law.

The law is being written to overturn some old Supreme Court legislation that allowed for federal regulation of an individual farmers wheat, which he was growing to make bread for his own family, because it could possibly interfere with commerce.

If this decision would be overturned, and many believe it would, based on the 10th amendment, then TONS of stuff the federal government does, and that people feel impedes on states rights would be overturned as well.

It's a huge case, I should find some links and start a thread.

Please do. I heard this in passing on the radio this morning and it sounds brilliant. I am interested to see how it goes.

Garcia Bronco
05-20-2009, 05:07 PM
Flatter or not...it's not flat. Ergo it is not equal. Everyone should pay the same percentage.

***SPRAYER
05-21-2009, 10:39 AM
NJ is bleeding taxpayers, too. I can't wait to get the hell out of the Northeast!

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/20/billionaire-to-new-york-screw-you/

SBK
05-21-2009, 11:05 AM
NJ is bleeding taxpayers, too. I can't wait to get the hell out of the Northeast!

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/20/billionaire-to-new-york-screw-you/

Not one person in this thread answered my question, of whether or not they'd leave their state to save $13,500 a day in taxes. I wonder why.......

KC native
05-21-2009, 11:25 AM
Not one person in this thread answered my question, of whether or not they'd leave their state to save $13,500 a day in taxes. I wonder why.......

Because it's a red herring.

patteeu
05-21-2009, 12:05 PM
Not one person in this thread answered my question, of whether or not they'd leave their state to save $13,500 a day in taxes. I wonder why.......

I'm probably not your target audience, but I'd leave the state to save $13,500 in a month!

SBK
05-21-2009, 12:07 PM
I'm probably not your target audience, but I'd leave the state to save $13,500 in a month!

LMAO

I have trouble believing anyone wouldn't leave to save that a month, and to argue otherwise if that's what you're saving a day is lunacy. ROFL

KC native
05-21-2009, 12:20 PM
LMAO

I have trouble believing anyone wouldn't leave to save that a month, and to argue otherwise if that's what you're saving a day is lunacy. ROFL

Well, if you're a billionaire then $5 million is peanuts. How about the other billionaires that live in NYC. Why are they not joining Spartacus here?

patteeu
05-21-2009, 12:25 PM
Well, if you're a billionaire then $5 million is peanuts. How about the other billionaires that live in NYC. Why are they not joining Spartacus here?

I suspect that some of them are. Here's another example (http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/672153.html) of a guy leaving New York because of taxes.

King_Chief_Fan
05-21-2009, 12:39 PM
How about the president's new cabinet members pay thier taxes?
How many tax evaders does he have now in his employ?

I paid $176,000 in taxes for 2008. That is quite a bit more than Biden paid. Soak the rich....no thank you sir I don't want another.

Garcia Bronco
05-21-2009, 12:50 PM
Not one person in this thread answered my question, of whether or not they'd leave their state to save $13,500 a day in taxes. I wonder why.......I would in a heart beat.

talastan
05-21-2009, 12:57 PM
How about the president's new cabinet members pay thier taxes?
How many tax evaders does he have now in his employ?

I paid $176,000 in taxes for 2008. That is quite a bit more than Biden paid. Soak the rich....no thank you sir I don't want another.

This is what I love, they'll soak the rich in income taxes, and then they soak us all in fuel taxes, capital gains, inheritance, and soon increased pricing of goods due to carbon taxing. This is exactly how the founding fathers wanted to promote bettering yourself. Make more money than your neighbor and you get hit twice as hard. And for the record I make a lot less than any of you so I can say I won't be hit nearly as hard and several here on the Planet will be.

talastan
05-21-2009, 12:58 PM
Not one person in this thread answered my question, of whether or not they'd leave their state to save $13,500 a day in taxes. I wonder why.......

I'd be out of the state within the day!!

***SPRAYER
05-21-2009, 01:22 PM
But Colon Powell says that people like paying taxes.

googlegoogle
06-14-2009, 04:09 PM
Ah, that's a nice symmetrical graph which completely ignores reality. Anyways, I've never said it was completely invalid however when you look at the graph my point stands. When you're moving from a very high tax rate then the curve works however when you're moving from lower rates to even lower rates it doesn't pay for itself. Thanks for showing that you don't know how to read a post nor a graph.

Our socialist talking economics is so cute. Pats you on the head for giving effort. ROFL

Look up jimmy carter.

Discuss Thrower
06-14-2009, 04:18 PM
If I heard correctly, the Montana legislature has written a bill that declares if a gun is made in Montana, and remains in Montana then there can be no federal regulation. I believe Texas and another state are writing the same law.

The law is being written to overturn some old Supreme Court legislation that allowed for federal regulation of an individual farmers wheat, which he was growing to make bread for his own family, because it could possibly interfere with commerce.

If this decision would be overturned, and many believe it would, based on the 10th amendment, then TONS of stuff the federal government does, and that people feel impedes on states rights would be overturned as well.

It's a huge case, I should find some links and start a thread.


Such laws won't mean jack. Do ALL of the materials, components, and crafters of the state originate in Montana? If the metal made for the gun was mined/refined outside the state, if the schematics for the gun itself or machinery used to make it, or even if one of the people MAKING the gun come from outside of Montana then it's Interstate Commerce. No ifs, ands, or buts. This plan won't work worth shit.

SBK
06-14-2009, 06:11 PM
Such laws won't mean jack. Do ALL of the materials, components, and crafters of the state originate in Montana? If the metal made for the gun was mined/refined outside the state, if the schematics for the gun itself or machinery used to make it, or even if one of the people MAKING the gun come from outside of Montana then it's Interstate Commerce. No ifs, ands, or buts. This plan won't work worth shit.

So you prefer an overbearing federal gov't?

Discuss Thrower
06-14-2009, 06:45 PM
So you prefer an overbearing federal gov't?

Absolutely hate it. You just have to accept the fact that it's here and it's NEVER going away.

SBK
06-14-2009, 06:50 PM
Absolutely hate it. You just have to accept the fact that it's here and it's NEVER going away.

I'm not going to accept that.

Discuss Thrower
06-14-2009, 07:03 PM
I'm not going to accept that.

How can you not? The only way the federal government will ever back down is if the legislature makes it so. And it won't. Because they've gone too far down the road.

The ICC is responsible for a lot of the overbearing nature of the government, true. But the power reaches made by the gov't has done some good, in that it restored the freedoms to all Americans as they were bestowed in spirit by the Constitution. Without the ICC, segregation would still be prevalent throughout the country, if not the entire freaking South, for the sole fact that the ICC was used to force motels/hotels into accepting a black clientele because they relied on federal roads for a majority of their business. Interstate Commerce in its purest application under the law.

Even if you could force the legislature to back down on the encroachment on state sovereignty, then you still have the executive and judiciary. Neither of them will ever back down because the power derived from the ICC is a foundation on their rights of governance as well.

Basically, it would take a Constitutional Amendment to get the federal government to stop power grabbing. And it will never happen. Too many stand to lose too much if it does. Politicians would be against it, and not enough people would be against it given that if a serious push was undertaken to unravel federal power it would be undercut by the fact that states rights, in the minds of probably most Americans, is inextricably linked with that of bigotry. Devolving government back to the states would register in the minds of many that intolerance has returned to prominence in America and such person's would never allow it.

2bikemike
06-14-2009, 08:04 PM
Such laws won't mean jack. Do ALL of the materials, components, and crafters of the state originate in Montana? If the metal made for the gun was mined/refined outside the state, if the schematics for the gun itself or machinery used to make it, or even if one of the people MAKING the gun come from outside of Montana then it's Interstate Commerce. No ifs, ands, or buts. This plan won't work worth shit.


Thats exactly how they are going to do it. Everything from within the state. At least that what I intrerpeted from the article I read.

2bikemike
06-14-2009, 08:10 PM
Here is an exerpt from something I received on the subject of the Montana Gun Law. Its kind of long so I apologize.


I have followed the development of this law since the outset, I am friendly with its instigator Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Assoc. http://www.mtssa.org (and we sell Gary's Montana gun-law book, which will be re-released in several weeks, updated and with the new law included). I was honored to coax and coach Gary into writing that book, now in its third edition http://www.gunlaws.com/books2.htm

Gary dreamed up the concept of the Montana gun-freedom bill, drafted the language himself ("that's why it's in plain English, I'm not a lawyer," he said) and guided it through his legislature to a 29 to 21 win in the Senate, and a stunning 85 to 14 romp in the House. It is a fabulous law. Imagine what it could do for economics in the state, wait, don't imagine, check this out -- Texas just introduced it too, where it could benefit more than 300 state-based manufacturers. It will, "invite new industry into Texas," according to its sponsor there, Leo Berman.

That's not all. Tennessee has introduced it as well. Alaska moved it through the Senate 32 to 7 but adjourned before the House could act. States actively considering it include Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. While some people got excited about virtually worthless feckless non-binding resolutions demanding 10th Amendment protection from federal abuse, this new law puts teeth into the demand.

This is a perfect point of pushback against illegal federal encroachment and violation of our constitutional rights. You should pick this up where you are, like we are here in Arizona, get someone in your state to make the small changes needed to match the language to your state, and run with it.

If the federales have their way, reaction would likely be directed against the first manufacturer to operate under the law. Feds will obtain a firearm produced in Montana, probably from a small shop without big time resources to fight the feds, and the person will be arrested, property confiscated, and charges filed with all sorts of laws that do not apply except in the feds imagination.

But then of course they run the courts that will convict the person, and the courts, if precedent is any gauge, will deny constitutional defenses and work vigorously to do the bidding of their federal masters. It will be a 9th and 10th Amendment case, and a Commerce Clause case, and a Supremacy Clause case, not a Second Amendment case.

However, the feds are unlikely to get their way so easily. We freedom types are pretty clever too, and little of this will happen without a plan. First, an effort is underway to find and temper any wildcat basement tool shop operators who ignorantly blast ahead making guns thinking they are immune to the federal hand. That will be good for the wildcats and for the proper movement of this important law.

A test case will be developed, Gary says, most likely with a carefully designed bolt-action .22 caliber youth rifle. The wood stock will come from a Montana grown tree. Standard steel-supplier stock will turn into the basic barrel and parts, and the statute makes clear that interstate regulation (if any) of raw stock does not apply to the stock once it is in state and used strictly for intrastate purposes (a point the courts will examine).

The people involved will have squeaky-clean records, including a Marine, tool makers with no FFL license to complicate things, and a youngster whose parents seek to get him the firearm. Clearance to make it will be sought from the proper authorities ahead of time. If it is granted (don't hold your breath) the deal is done. If it is not granted (a pretty sure bet), the parties will have grounds to sue in civil (not criminal) court. It's pretty complicated, but it's well thought out.

In a conference call between Marbut and six top-level attorneys, it became obvious that the legal fight is an uphill battle, because the feds run the courts. To date, the federal judicial system has treated the 10th Amendment as a dead letter, and this from an attorney who has fought such cases from the lowest ranks to the Supreme Court itself. If the federal government wants something, it doesn't let a little thing like the Bill of Rights stand in its way. I know, it's infuriating, but that's the way it is.

Now there's a political dimension to this as well. All the states are being abused and denied their rights under the 10th Amendment. The public is outraged at the lack of control on the federal behemoth. It's time for something to give.

The Associated Press and USA Today have picked up on it, and FOX-TV's Glenn Beck is negotiating to get Marbut on the show.

As more and more states get on the case, the pressure builds, and the ability of the system to resist a straightforward and righteous demand weakens. The Montana Firearms Freedom Act can be the straw that breaks the federal back. Once 10th Amendment hegemony is re-established, the floodgates of freedom are open.

The feds and their lapdog lackies in the lamestream media are likely to refer to this action as an attempt at "illicit manufacture and trafficking in firearms," the words in the CIFTA treaty http://www.gunlaws.com/GunLawUpdate5-CIFTA.htm. The feds would love to raid a compound (an innocent owner's small tool shop), confiscate an arsenal (more than one firearm and some parts), and sick their legal dogs on the poor soul. They're not going to get such an easy shot. As many as five coordinated cases will be structured.

***SPRAYER
06-14-2009, 08:17 PM
http://www.amren.com/ar/2009/01/04a-communist-party-poster.jpg

Calcountry
06-14-2009, 08:17 PM
Is that so? Why don't you actually look at the Laffer Curve instead of making claims which you know nothing about. Patty, your word games can't change the shape of the Laffer Curve. The Laffer Curve says that a cut in tax rates will bring in higher government revenue (which has been shown during Reagan and Shrub Jr that it's not true). If you're cutting from high (as in 70% and above) tax rates then yes a tax cut will pay for itself however moving from a 40% tax rate to a 35% tax rate creates deficits.Certainly, at some point on the laffer curve, the sideways max because it is not a function, tax cuts produce lower revenue. However, as BEP says, anecdotal evidence RULES. I have had dozens of small business owners say they are splitting california in the past 3 years. If I had a clear path of escape, I'd be gone as well.

2bikemike
06-14-2009, 08:40 PM
Certainly, at some point on the laffer curve, the sideways max because it is not a function, tax cuts produce lower revenue. However, as BEP says, anecdotal evidence RULES. I have had dozens of small business owners say they are splitting california in the past 3 years. If I had a clear path of escape, I'd be gone as well.

Unless something drastic happens I will work here in Cali for another 10 years and then when its time to liquidate and retire I will be a residence of a Tax free state.

Discuss Thrower
06-14-2009, 09:21 PM
Here is an exerpt from something I received on the subject of the Montana Gun Law. Its kind of long so I apologize.


If the federales have their way, reaction would likely be directed against the first manufacturer to operate under the law. Feds will obtain a firearm produced in Montana, probably from a small shop without big time resources to fight the feds, and the person will be arrested, property confiscated, and charges filed with all sorts of laws that do not apply except in the feds imagination.

Achilles heel, a small shop is serviced in some way by federal government funded infrastructure (US Post Office, State roads subsidized by federal funds) and thus more than likely governed by the ICC. There is no way around the Commerce Clause when you are inside the borders of the United States of America

Standard steel-supplier stock will turn into the basic barrel and parts, and the statute makes clear that interstate regulation (if any) of raw stock does not apply to the stock once it is in state and used strictly for intrastate purposes (a point the courts will examine).

Probably pretty easy for the Courts to decide against Montana.

The people involved will have squeaky-clean records, including a Marine, tool makers with no FFL license to complicate things, and a youngster whose parents seek to get him the firearm. Clearance to make it will be sought from the proper authorities ahead of time. If it is granted (don't hold your breath) the deal is done. If it is not granted (a pretty sure bet), the parties will have grounds to sue in civil (not criminal) court. It's pretty complicated, but it's well thought out.

Clients may still not have standing here, as this swings from a 10th Amendment issue to that of what the 2nd Amendment Actually means.

In a conference call between Marbut and six top-level attorneys, it became obvious that the legal fight is an uphill battle, because the feds run the courts. To date, the federal judicial system has treated the 10th Amendment as a dead letter, and this from an attorney who has fought such cases from the lowest ranks to the Supreme Court itself. If the federal government wants something, it doesn't let a little thing like the Bill of Rights stand in its way. I know, it's infuriating, but that's the way it is.

Yup, and it will ALWAYS be that way.

Now there's a political dimension to this as well. All the states are being abused and denied their rights under the 10th Amendment. The public is outraged at the lack of control on the federal behemoth. It's time for something to give.

The public is not outraged. Hope and Change!

The Associated Press and USA Today have picked up on it, and FOX-TV's Glenn Beck is negotiating to get Marbut on the show.

So, in the minds of lot of Americans, right wing nutjobs are the ones behind this effort? Not good for the cause, folks.

As more and more states get on the case, the pressure builds, and the ability of the system to resist a straightforward and righteous demand weakens. The Montana Firearms Freedom Act can be the straw that breaks the federal back. Once 10th Amendment hegemony is re-established, the floodgates of freedom are open.

No, they won't be.

The feds and their lapdog lackies in the lamestream media are likely to refer to this action as an attempt at "illicit manufacture and trafficking in firearms," the words in the CIFTA treaty http://www.gunlaws.com/GunLawUpdate5-CIFTA.htm. The feds would love to raid a compound (an innocent owner's small tool shop), confiscate an arsenal (more than one firearm and some parts), and sick their legal dogs on the poor soul. They're not going to get such an easy shot. As many as five coordinated cases will be structured.

Boom, there it is. The USA is probably privy to some treaty, if not the one mentioned here, that prohibits such behavior. Unless Montana secedes, this little gambit will fall flat on its ass. History review, folks. Civil War was the ultimate decision on state sovereignty. Remember which side lost.



Responses to the article in bold. I'm only an undergrad that is looking to go to law school and I've only had a constitutional law class that was general at best with minimal effort on my part, but it seems pretty clear to me. Federal Government > State Government.

But again, I'm not a lawyer. Ask for Banyon or another Planeteer-lawyer on what they think of it.

BucEyedPea
06-14-2009, 09:23 PM
http://www.amren.com/ar/2009/01/04a-communist-party-poster.jpg

Is that bunyon on that poster? He's a progressive.

SBK
06-14-2009, 09:23 PM
How can you not? The only way the federal government will ever back down is if the legislature makes it so. And it won't. Because they've gone too far down the road.

The ICC is responsible for a lot of the overbearing nature of the government, true. But the power reaches made by the gov't has done some good, in that it restored the freedoms to all Americans as they were bestowed in spirit by the Constitution. Without the ICC, segregation would still be prevalent throughout the country, if not the entire freaking South, for the sole fact that the ICC was used to force motels/hotels into accepting a black clientele because they relied on federal roads for a majority of their business. Interstate Commerce in its purest application under the law.

Even if you could force the legislature to back down on the encroachment on state sovereignty, then you still have the executive and judiciary. Neither of them will ever back down because the power derived from the ICC is a foundation on their rights of governance as well.

Basically, it would take a Constitutional Amendment to get the federal government to stop power grabbing. And it will never happen. Too many stand to lose too much if it does. Politicians would be against it, and not enough people would be against it given that if a serious push was undertaken to unravel federal power it would be undercut by the fact that states rights, in the minds of probably most Americans, is inextricably linked with that of bigotry. Devolving government back to the states would register in the minds of many that intolerance has returned to prominence in America and such person's would never allow it.

You know the case that allowed this over reaching was a farmer growing wheat for his family. The court determined that his wheat growing for his families consumption could affect commerce.

That ruling will be over turned, many states are gearing up for the legal battle now.

Voters, in the same way, are starting to organize to protest and push back at the federal government going too far.

Instead of calling it inevitable and giving up before the fight, you should join in.

banyon
06-14-2009, 09:35 PM
Is that bunyon on that poster? He's a progressive.

Man you've just given up on trying to actually rationally debate now, haven't you? I guess it's just cowardly name calling from here on out, huh? You and SHTSPRAYER, good times.

Keep playing the little fake ignore avoid substance wherever you can game, it's pretty transparently disingenuous and speaks more about the paucity of your ideology than an attempted substantive post would anyway.

banyon
06-14-2009, 09:36 PM
You know the case that allowed this over reaching was a farmer growing wheat for his family. The court determined that his wheat growing for his families consumption could affect commerce.

That ruling will be over turned, many states are gearing up for the legal battle now.

Voters, in the same way, are starting to organize to protest and push back at the federal government going too far.

Instead of calling it inevitable and giving up before the fight, you should join in.

I'd be interested in seeing that. Where did you hear of it?

SBK
06-14-2009, 10:03 PM
I'd be interested in seeing that. Where did you hear of it?

I was driving around in the car when I heard it. It was probably either Glenn Beck or Neil Boortz. I doubt they talk about that kind of thing on sports radio... :D

Montana, Texas and I believe Oklahoma are crafting legislation specifically designed to overturn the ruling that was made for interstate commerce, which was the case of the guy growing wheat for his family. I think he was from Kansas actually.

Whoever was talking about it said that these cases could strip the federal government of a TON of power and give it back to the states, which in their opinion is what the constitution called for. There was a judge on the show that said in the courts current form (pre Sotomayor) he thought the case would win 6-3 or 7-2.

I've not taking the time to look for it very much, did a brief search but I suck at google.

2bikemike
06-14-2009, 11:27 PM
Responses to the article in bold. I'm only an undergrad that is looking to go to law school and I've only had a constitutional law class that was general at best with minimal effort on my part, but it seems pretty clear to me. Federal Government > State Government.

But again, I'm not a lawyer. Ask for Banyon or another Planeteer-lawyer on what they think of it.

While I agree that this is an extreme long shot it is a fight worth fighting and it is a way to bring to light the ever expanding Federal Powers.

patteeu
06-15-2009, 07:56 AM
How can you not? The only way the federal government will ever back down is if the legislature makes it so. And it won't. Because they've gone too far down the road.

The ICC is responsible for a lot of the overbearing nature of the government, true. But the power reaches made by the gov't has done some good, in that it restored the freedoms to all Americans as they were bestowed in spirit by the Constitution. Without the ICC, segregation would still be prevalent throughout the country, if not the entire freaking South, for the sole fact that the ICC was used to force motels/hotels into accepting a black clientele because they relied on federal roads for a majority of their business. Interstate Commerce in its purest application under the law.

Even if you could force the legislature to back down on the encroachment on state sovereignty, then you still have the executive and judiciary. Neither of them will ever back down because the power derived from the ICC is a foundation on their rights of governance as well.

Basically, it would take a Constitutional Amendment to get the federal government to stop power grabbing. And it will never happen. Too many stand to lose too much if it does. Politicians would be against it, and not enough people would be against it given that if a serious push was undertaken to unravel federal power it would be undercut by the fact that states rights, in the minds of probably most Americans, is inextricably linked with that of bigotry. Devolving government back to the states would register in the minds of many that intolerance has returned to prominence in America and such person's would never allow it.

I've got a couple of problems with the bolded section.

First, it's not clear at all that segregation would still be prevalent without the federal government forcing hotels/motels to accept black customers.

Second, that's certainly NOT application of the ICC in it's purest form. Regulating trade between the states to do such things as prevent trade wars and protectionist tariffs is a more pure application of the ICC power of the federal government.

You're argument is a "ends justifies the means" argument, fwiw.

As for your belief that there's no turning back from the abuse of the ICC, that could end up being true. However, starting in the 1990's, the conservative wing of the SCOTUS showed interest in doing just that, i.e. reigning in the sweep of the ICC. Had we elected a POTUS in 2008 with an inclination to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg with a conservative jurist, we would have seen the legislature's abuse of the ICC significantly restricted. We were that close.

patteeu
06-15-2009, 07:59 AM
I was driving around in the car when I heard it. It was probably either Glenn Beck or Neil Boortz. I doubt they talk about that kind of thing on sports radio... :D

Montana, Texas and I believe Oklahoma are crafting legislation specifically designed to overturn the ruling that was made for interstate commerce, which was the case of the guy growing wheat for his family. I think he was from Kansas actually.

Whoever was talking about it said that these cases could strip the federal government of a TON of power and give it back to the states, which in their opinion is what the constitution called for. There was a judge on the show that said in the courts current form (pre Sotomayor) he thought the case would win 6-3 or 7-2.

I've not taking the time to look for it very much, did a brief search but I suck at google.

I don't think Sotomayor would change the outcome at all. Surely Ginsberg would vote against overturning that ruling. I'd be surprised if a case like that would win by any more than a 5-4 margin and I wouldn't count on even that.

Discuss Thrower
06-15-2009, 08:36 PM
I've got a couple of problems with the bolded section.

First, it's not clear at all that segregation would still be prevalent without the federal government forcing hotels/motels to accept black customers.

Second, that's certainly NOT application of the ICC in it's purest form. Regulating trade between the states to do such things as prevent trade wars and protectionist tariffs is a more pure application of the ICC power of the federal government.

You're argument is a "ends justifies the means" argument, fwiw.

As for your belief that there's no turning back from the abuse of the ICC, that could end up being true. However, starting in the 1990's, the conservative wing of the SCOTUS showed interest in doing just that, i.e. reigning in the sweep of the ICC. Had we elected a POTUS in 2008 with an inclination to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg with a conservative jurist, we would have seen the legislature's abuse of the ICC significantly restricted. We were that close.

When it comes to ensuring the freedoms extended to all citizens as intended through the Constitution, yes the ends do justify the means.

And I don't believe for one minute the federal judiciary has any desire to rollback interpretations of the ICC. Not at all.

patteeu
06-15-2009, 09:03 PM
When it comes to ensuring the freedoms extended to all citizens as intended through the Constitution, yes the ends do justify the means.

And I don't believe for one minute the federal judiciary has any desire to rollback interpretations of the ICC. Not at all.

It's already started to happen. In 1995, for the first time since the New Deal, the SCOTUS found limits to the power of the commerce clause in United States v. Lopez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez). Ideologically, the court hasn't changed much (Roberts and Alito have replaced two of the majority members in that 5-4 decision, but there's a decent chance that they would have voted in the majority if they'd been on that court). One more conservative on the court would have made a big difference on this particular issue as I don't know how far Kennedy or O'Conner would have been willing to go.

And your statement about the ends justifying the means didn't make any sense to me. If we're talking about freedoms being extended as intended through the Constitution, then the means aren't controversial and don't need to be justified by the ends. It's only when the Constitution is being distorted in order to pursue an end that some group of judges finds desirable that we have an issue of ends being used to justify means.

Saul Good
06-15-2009, 10:09 PM
When it comes to ensuring the freedoms extended to all citizens as intended through the Constitution, yes the ends do justify the means.

And I don't believe for one minute the federal judiciary has any desire to rollback interpretations of the ICC. Not at all.

You're looking to go to law school, and you think that the ends justify the means is a valid method of interpreting the Constitution? Maybe you should look into a different type of higher education. Are there any schools in your area that can teach you how to dig in a nice straight line?

googlegoogle
06-16-2009, 02:34 PM
Soak the rich = steal from the savers and investors. The robin hood analogy used by socialists is just stupid. The state is all powerful just like the lords of the day. They take from hard workers to enrich the state and buy votes for the 'lord' politicians.

BucEyedPea
06-16-2009, 03:19 PM
But again, I'm not a lawyer. Ask for Banyon or another Planeteer-lawyer on what they think of it.
Unfortunately that doesn't answer this question because of how lawyers are taught today. That began years ago, with the Federalists vs the anti-Federalists with the Hamiltonians or legal positivists winning the day. One of my gf teaches Con law up in Boston area and she said lawyers today are even taught that the Tenth Amendment is a dead letter and that everything is interstate commerce. I've seen one of the lawyers here even say the latter. Some don't even think original intent can even be found. So it DEPENDS on the lawyer you ask here. I mean that's why we have our Lawrence Tribes versus our former judges like Napolitano or Scalias. There are two camps.

I say the Fed is not > than state as a general statement...but only in the areas the Fed govt is supposed to have power. In fact you could remove whole cases from not being heard by the SC under some of congresses powers.

banyon
06-16-2009, 05:51 PM
I say the Fed is not > than state as a general statement...but only in the areas the Fed govt is supposed to have power. In fact you could remove whole cases from not being heard by the SC under some of congresses powers.

Needless to say, nearly everything said here is 180 degrees wrong.

The supremacy clause, 200 years of precedent and the civil war have firmly established that the supremacy clause of the Constitution does in fact apply in any situation where Federal and state laws conflict and the federal law is constitutional.


And no, the interstate commerce clause is not meaningless or empty as the grumblers would have it.

There is no power of Congress to "remove cases" from the SCOTUS. Yet another fictional narrative.

patteeu
06-16-2009, 09:23 PM
Needless to say, nearly everything said here is 180 degrees wrong.

The supremacy clause, 200 years of precedent and the civil war have firmly established that the supremacy clause of the Constitution does in fact apply in any situation where Federal and state laws conflict and the federal law is constitutional.


And no, the interstate commerce clause is not meaningless or empty as the grumblers would have it.

There is no power of Congress to "remove cases" from the SCOTUS. Yet another fictional narrative.

I think the bolded section makes your statement effectively the same as BEP's. It's just that the two of you would be likely to disagree on what laws were constitutional.

banyon
06-16-2009, 09:27 PM
I think the bolded section makes your statement effectively the same as BEP's. It's just that the two of you would be likely to disagree on what laws were constitutional.

That is my fault for being vague. More precisely, I meant vague, overbroad, or fall within the traditional police powers of the state.

And I assume you would agree that Congress doesn't have the power to "remove cases from the SCOTUS".

BucEyedPea
06-16-2009, 09:42 PM
I think the bolded section makes your statement effectively the same as BEP's. It's just that the two of you would be likely to disagree on what laws were constitutional.

LOL! I know and he's wrong about congress not having the power to remove certain types of due to jurisdiction. In fact there was an event that came up that discussed that on this board. Of course the lawyers went nuts.

And precedent is mostly Hamiltonian. So that makes my case too. The anti-federalists have not won the day...so precedent, much of it, particularly since the revolution in the courts of the 30's is bunk. We live in Hamiltonian's America.

banyon
06-16-2009, 09:46 PM
LOL! I know and he's wrong about congress not having the power to remove certain types of due to jurisdiction. In fact there was an event that came up that discussed that on this board. Of course the lawyers went nuts.

And precedent is mostly Hamiltonian. So that makes my case too. The anti-federalists have not won the day...so precedent, much of it, particularly since the revolution in the courts of the 30's is bunk. We live in Hamiltonian's America.

If Hamilton's ideas won out (which I agree that they did), then following them allowed us to become the most prosperous and powerful nation in world history.

If Jefferson had even followed his own rules (and the ones you'd fervently like to turn back the clock to), then he wouldn't have even made the Louisiana Purchase. How would that have changed things?

Oh, and I note that your absurd claim about Congress removing cases from the SCOTUS remains completely unsubstantiated. Hell as a professed Constitutional literalist, what specific Constitutional authority would they have to do so?

Mizzou_8541
06-16-2009, 09:58 PM
And lose em.

Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts

Can these numbers be correct?

patteeu
06-16-2009, 11:00 PM
That is my fault for being vague. More precisely, I meant vague, overbroad, or fall within the traditional police powers of the state.

And I assume you would agree that Congress doesn't have the power to "remove cases from the SCOTUS".

Congress has some ability to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the SCOTUS but not the original jurisdiction, as I'm sure you know better than I do. It's unclear to me how much power this gives to Congress to "remove cases from the SCOTUS" prospectively and it certainly doesn't give them the ability to remove a case as it's being heard.

***SPRAYER
06-23-2009, 07:38 PM
http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ice.jpg

KC native
06-24-2009, 09:43 AM
http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ice.jpg

Why the fuck do you keep bumping old threads with pics and nonsense?

Cannibal
06-24-2009, 09:47 AM
Because his brain consists of a marble rattling around the inside of his hollow skull like maracas being used a drunk mexican on Cinco De Mayo.

***SPRAYER
07-14-2009, 06:15 AM
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Change_Asshole_160.gif